Right, right. I am just trying to establish how minor and low-powered a deity has to be before an atheist can safely believe in it.Frelga: An atheist can believe in whatever he wants, except a god (because then he's not an atheist anymore). The rules for materialists are a little stricter.
One is reminded of the old joke about the guy who asked the woman if she would sleep with him for a million bucks, and when she said yes, asked her if she'd sleep with him for ten. When she indignantly asked, "what kind of woman do you think I am?," he replied "we established that already--now we're just negotiating on price."Frelga wrote:I am just trying to establish how minor and low-powered a deity has to be before an atheist can safely believe in it.
Belief is at the root of my whole system of understanding the world. It is at my essence and says "Yes! that fits!". It is always necessary. I am presented with what others believe to be facts, evidence, proof, and knowledge, and have to decide if it fits into the jig-saw puzzle that defines me. I know some people who say they have firm proof that God exists. They believe the proof, so they believe in God. At one time, I had firm belief in God, too, but at some point the belief died out, and I don't have it anymore. I still have belief in lots of other things that I can't see - evolution, continental drift, quarks, the chance of a better tomorrow - but those beliefs could change tomorrow if I was presented with alternative explanations, reviewed them carefully, considered the credibility of the source, and got that "AHA!" feeling that the new explanation fit my world view better.Rodia wrote:... logically it would seem to me that belief is unnecessary in the face of fact backed by evidence, no? With proof, belief turns into simple knowledge.
Could you spell this out a bit? Are you saying that a "concrete" soul would be perceivable somehow?Dave_LF wrote:Those things are abstract ideas, while a soul, if real, would be concrete.
Hm. What do you call a person who believes in demigods but not gods?Frelga wrote:I am just trying to establish how minor and low-powered a deity has to be before an atheist can safely believe in it.
Like any label, it becomes a word game at some point.By concrete I just mean something that exists in the external world. It doesn't necessarily have to be perceivable.nerdanel wrote:Could you spell this out a bit? Are you saying that a "concrete" soul would be perceivable somehow?Dave_LF wrote:Those things are abstract ideas, while a soul, if real, would be concrete.
Well, it's now clear that I am not a humanist. Not by that definition, anyway.narya wrote:Someone earlier in this thread asked, "Well then, what do you believe in?" I just heard a podcast that makes a great start at answering that question. The interview is on Fresh Air (NPR) with Harvard Humanist Chaplain Greg Epstein. He sums up Humanist beliefs as:
Humanism is a progressive, life stance or philosophy of life that, without anything magical or supernatural, affirms our ability and our responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment, aspiring to the greater good of humanity.
And...
Humanism is a bold, resolute response to the fact that being a human being is lonely and frightening. Humanism means taking charge of the often lousy world around us and working to shape it into a better place, though we know we cannot ever finish the task.
The whole interview is well worth listening to:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =121813448
I disagree with this. I think it's possible to intellectually give assent to a proposition without really believing it. 'Belief' is a firm conviction about something. So for example, a smoker could intellectually accept the fact that smoking is harmful, but if he really believed it, he would stop (or try to stop) smoking. Belief leads to action; or as they say, we do what we believe. So I'd say belief is something apart from mere intellectual assent.Dave_LF wrote:Belief just means giving assent to a proposition, with or without evidence.
I don't know that belief necessarily leads to action, Cerin. In my observation, many many people do the opposite of what they most sincerely believe which is why I ate all those cookies last night. Action requires will, energy and perseverance, in addition to convictions.Cerin wrote:I disagree with this. I think it's possible to intellectually give assent to a proposition without really believing it. 'Belief' is a firm conviction about something. So for example, a smoker could intellectually accept the fact that smoking is harmful, but if he really believed it, he would stop (or try to stop) smoking. Belief leads to action; or as they say, we do what we believe. So I'd say belief is something apart from mere intellectual assent.
What is it that you are thinking you most sincerely believed about eating the cookies? I'd suggest (according to the construct I was proposing) that you intellectually assented to the idea that you shouldn't eat the cookies, but that you didn't really believe you shouldn't eat them or that it was bad for you to eat them. According to the way I'm defining 'believe', if you had really believed you shouldn't eat the cookies (that there would be truly negative consequences to doing so), you wouldn't have eaten them.Frelga wrote:In my observation, many many people do the opposite of what they most sincerely believe which is why I ate all those cookies last night.
Leaving aside value judgments about the actions that spring from belief, what use is belief if it doesn't lead to action? I think the concept of simple mental assent isn't terribly consequential or dynamic, whereas I think of belief as something that is consequential and dynamic.I agree that belief should lead to action. Although so many evil actions have sprung from sincere belief that even that statement is arguable.
I don't agree with this. A mind is committee. It is quite possible for the scholars on the committee come to a firm conclusion that the businessmen disregard as a bunch of academic gobbledygook. That doesn't mean the person doesn't believe what he says; it just means his intellect isn't strong enough to overcome his appetites all by itself.Cerin wrote:a smoker could intellectually accept the fact that smoking is harmful, but if he really believed it, he would stop (or try to stop) smoking
This principle is pretty much the essential fact behind all good fiction, by the way.A mind is committee. It is quite possible for the scholars on the committee come to a firm conclusion that the businessmen disregard as a bunch of academic gobbledygook. That doesn't mean the person doesn't believe what he says; it just means his intellect isn't strong enough to overcome his appetites all by itself.
I guess it depends where you look it up. I get:Dave_LF wrote:The first dictionary definition of "belief" is "assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge". So I guess Webster disagrees with both of us.
I think the fact of overcoming the appetite (in this case a physical addiction) is irrelevant to this example, as long as the attempt to quit is made. If a person sincerely attempts to quit, then I'd say they have a firm conviction about the health risks of smoking. If they don't attempt it, then I'd say they don't have a firm conviction about it, though if asked they would probably mentally assent to the abstract notion that cigarettes are harmful to the health.A mind is committee. It is quite possible for the scholars on the committee come to a firm conclusion that the businessmen disregard as a bunch of academic gobbledygook. That doesn't mean the person doesn't believe what he says; it just means his intellect isn't strong enough to overcome his appetites all by itself.
